MILLER PIPELINE CORPORATION v. Broeker

Indiana Court of Appeals

MILLER PIPELINE CORPORATION v. Broeker

464 N.E.2d 12, 1984 Ind. App. LEXIS 2619

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 23, 1984

Docket2-682A163

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 464 N.E.2d 12 (MILLER PIPELINE CORPORATION v. Broeker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MILLER PIPELINE CORPORATION v. Broeker, 464 N.E.2d 12, 1984 Ind. App. LEXIS 2619 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

SULLIVAN, Judge.

Miller ' Pipeline Corporation appealed from an adverse jury verdict awarding $75,000 punitive damages. In our decision of February 27, 1984, we reversed the award, holding that conduct for which punitive damages may be awarded must demonstrate malice or an equivalent state of mind and that a heedless disregard of the consequences, absent an oppressive or malicious state of mind, was insufficient to justify such an award. Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Broeker (2d Dist.1984) Ind.App., 460 N.E.2d 177, 185.

On petition for rehearing, the Broekers, pursuant to Appellate Rule 8.4(B) have filed additional authority in support of the punitive damages award, to-wit: Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Charles Traina and Michelle Traina (4th Dist.1984) Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 693. Orkin was decided one month after our decision in Miller Pipeline, supra. It holds that wilful or wanton misconduct alone will support an award of punitive damages.

We acknowledge that Orkin's specification of the conduct necessary to an award of punitive damages contemplates something considerably less than the malice standard we enunciated in Miller Pipeline, and as such, constitutes a direct contradiction. However, we believe Orkin incorrectly states the law and decline the invitation to adopt its rationale in preference to our decision of February 27, 1984.

Accordingly we deny rehearing.

SHIELDS, J., concurs. MILLER, J. (participating by designation), concurs in result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

SULLIVAN, Judge.

Miller ' Pipeline Corporation appealed from an adverse jury verdict awarding $75,000 punitive damages. In our decision of February 27, 1984, we reversed the award, holding that conduct for which punitive damages may be awarded must demonstrate malice or an equivalent state of mind and that a heedless disregard of the consequences, absent an oppressive or malicious state of mind, was insufficient to justify such an award. Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Broeker (2d Dist.1984) Ind.App., 460 N.E.2d 177, 185.

On petition for rehearing, the Broekers, pursuant to Appellate Rule 8.4(B) have filed additional authority in support of the punitive damages award, to-wit: Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Charles Traina and Michelle Traina (4th Dist.1984) Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 693. Orkin was decided one month after our decision in Miller Pipeline, supra. It holds that wilful or wanton misconduct alone will support an award of punitive damages.

We acknowledge that Orkin's specification of the conduct necessary to an award of punitive damages contemplates something considerably less than the malice standard we enunciated in Miller Pipeline, and as such, constitutes a direct contradiction. However, we believe Orkin incorrectly states the law and decline the invitation to adopt its rationale in preference to our decision of February 27, 1984.

Accordingly we deny rehearing.

SHIELDS, J., concurs. MILLER, J. (participating by designation), concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 N.E.2d 12, 1984 Ind. App. LEXIS 2619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-pipeline-corporation-v-broeker-indctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack